Perhaps the issue of who's spelling for "armo(u)ry" is more relevant should be settled by gauging the amount of victories/losses against other countries achieved by Britain and America.

Political/militaryevaluationandenlightenment time:On the one hand, Britain has won multiple victories over the French (back in the medivo era), and two wars against the Germans, whereas America only won two wars against the Germans, but not the French. However, America managed to defeat Japan at the same time (we'll assume the help from other allied forces was relatively small). Although admittedly America's chances are damaged slightly by losing to Vietnam.

I suspect I will end up regretting breaking my inner rule of "never enter political debates on the brikwars forum"...

I won't break out the "stalemate" argument for Vietnam, which is stupid. Stalemates only count as victories for communist countries...like Vietnam. But you forgot the Korean War, the Gulf war, and the American Civil War. Yes, we won the American Civil War.But let's do the sensible thing and just agree that Israel is better than all of us so it's really kind of a moot point after that.

Alternately, we could argue based on who has the coolest military equipment.

Tzan wrote:

Semaj Nagirrac wrote:Well, I took some land without checking if it was owned by a faction or not. I'm not going to be banned, am I? I can destroy everything if need be.

"Armor" is in the Brikwars manual under the American spelling - thus it is safe to assume that to stay congruous with this style, spelling should be taken with a primary emphasis on Brik-English spelling, and a secondary emphasis on American-English spelling. Clearly the solution is Armoory.

Wouldn't have won either without the superior industrial might of the US, so no, you didn't.

Regarding the French, we haven't fought them except in the Quasi-Wars, which were like nothing.

Regarding Vietnam, it was an unwinnable war. The South Vietnamese regime(s) just antagonized the farmers and resulted in overwhelming support for the North, the terrain makes conventional fighting impossible, and the American public was what ultimately lost it in the end. Also the French lost there too.

stubby wrote: my floppy penis gets first dibs on it for tradition's sake, but it doesn't seem likely that he'll want to stick around long enough to play.

Ham701 wrote:Regarding Vietnam, it was an unwinnable war. The South Vietnamese regime(s) just antagonized the farmers and resulted in overwhelming support for the North, the terrain makes conventional fighting impossible, and the American public was what ultimately lost it in the end. Also the French lost there too.

So much more than that. Did you know that roughly 80% of all engagements in Vietnam had their time and place chosen by the NVA? For the most part, America just kinda stumbled around the jungle, and the NVA would let them do exactly that until the time was ripe for attack (in small numbers against isolated squads of even smaller numbers). It's got Sun Tzu written all over it.

Ham701 wrote:Regarding Vietnam, it was an unwinnable war. The South Vietnamese regime(s) just antagonized the farmers and resulted in overwhelming support for the North, the terrain makes conventional fighting impossible, and the American public was what ultimately lost it in the end. Also the French lost there too.

Leading to such internal struggle within the united states that it would have collapsed from within. Hippies would have gone militant over something like that, as unlikely as it seems.

America lost Vietnam in America before we lost Vietnam in Vietnam. We even killed most of their dudes during the Tet offensive! It's only really because we had TV and got to see how super fucked-up the casualties were getting that the will of the people was lost. Can you imagine what a nuclear strike would have done to such an angry home turf?